Whats with all the trainner modules.

[DaveRindner]

I don't mean to bitch and moan, but I must let my thoughts out.

Whats with all the training aircraft modules. C-101, L-39, Hawk. Whats next a Cessna?

They are nice, as they are accurate, as trainers, their systems classification level is low. But this is a combat simulator, not a training simulator. As simulators become more accurate, the need for specific training aircraft will diminish. USAF is considering sending advanced air cadets directly into F-16D (two seat), for those heading to tactical aircraft. Getting rid of T series of aircraft.

IMHO training aircraft modules are a questionable use of developer resources. Better put to use developing modules of actual combat systems. Mirage2000 is perfect example of what to develop. Thank you RAZBAM. As is F-18 C/D and Typhoon. However as much as we all love the Typhoon , it is a Bridge To Far, as many of its systems are classified and would have to be either deleted or non-realistic.

F-16 Block50/52/60 C/D/I/E/F is a must develop. US ANG has updated all its Block 30 to Block 50 CCIP+. It is the standard around which other combat aircraft are judged, and around which most Western tactical air tactics are developed. Most missions are flown with this type.Whats trully classified are communication systems ,and radar, and of course some latest weapons. I'd say AIM-120 C5 and newer, and AIM-9X are too sensitive to develop realistically. JHMCS also out. Everything else is more or less in the open. AIM-9M-8-9 is extended range, all aspect with desent no escape zone. Perhaps Rafael Python-4.

Large aircraft modules. C-130 SpectreII gunship is nice, but so many of its sensors are classified. However a USMC C-130 with tacked on AGM-114K is not to much.

Two rotaries I would love to see. UH-60L/M and base NH-90.

[PiedDroit]

I kind of agree with you regarding highly classified airframes but you're pushing a bit too far otherwise.

Don't blame people for wanting something else than what you want.

People want trainers? Fine, let developers do it and make their living with it.

And don't buy it ;)

The modules you like are still being developed in the meantime.

[Nealius]

I agree, but at the same time I would find it fun to start off practicing in a prop trainer, then a jet trainer, and then on to the big leagues. I'm finding a lot of flaws in my flying fundamentals that translate into sloppy handling with birds like the A-10C.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Trainers often double as light attack aircraft, COIN, and FAC birds.

 

It probably would've been better to make the Hawk 200 over the T.1A, though.

 

Also, don't smack talk Cessnas:

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[DaveRindner]

No smack on Cessna

 

No sir, no smack talk in Cessna. Still the only aircraft known to have penetrated Soviet Layered Air Defense, and landed in Red Square.

But I would not be inclined to purchase one for DCS.

[LazerPotatoe]

As I understand it, the L-39 is the test-bed for Eagle Dynamics to develop their 2-seater technology in the base-game.

 

And all the other trainers are from 3rd parties, which was recommended to them by ED as a simpler way for them to get their feet wet with developing modules for DCS.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

No sir, no smack talk in Cessna. Still the only aircraft known to have penetrated Soviet Layered Air Defense, and landed in Red Square.

But I would not be inclined to purchase one for DCS.

 

Mathias Rust is a hero to us all.

[ebabil]

agree. i liked l-39 albatros too much. very pretty bird. i thought of buying it but.. what am i suppose to with it? if i dare to dog fight in multiplayer, they will hunt me like duck. a2g is also unefficient. recon missions? there is none in dcsw

 

i am triying to look from devs window, but can't get it that why they don't produce an f-16 or something like that. if they do so, i am sure that they can sell it much more than they had sold other modules. community is dying for a modern multirole fighter.

[OnlyforDCS]

Not everyone wants to fight in their airplane. The L39 has a great flight model. Im loving it. It's not much use for anything else, but it does introduce you to systems which are found in nearly every other Soviet jet. With that said, the only reason why I purchased it is because it was made by Eagle Dynamics and features a very nice flight model. I wouldn't really consider a third-party trainer.

[McBlemmen]

Trainers are an easy cash grab for people who want to take money from the "i buy every dcs module to support DCS" sheeple. One day people will get sick of it and they will fade away.

[Slipp]

I hope that Mirage 2000C is a sign of what's coming in the future.

A combat aircraft for a Digital Combat Simulator.

 

The amount of people who bought Mirage in pre-sale, is probably larger than the amount of people who bought C-101 or Hawk since they came out. There is money to be gained from combat planes.

 

This sim came from LOMAC, and is surprisingly lacking in flyable modern air combat department.

 

But with Mirage 2000, F-14 and F-5 coming next year... This might change.

 

But the best comes in 2018, when DCS F-18 comes out. :music_whistling:

[Aginor]

It is easier to do for third parties. For the first project they do a simple plane, to learn all the stuff.

 

@McBlemmen: I feel a bit offended by your choice of words, but I think you are right. At the moment I own all of the trainers, and I would probably buy one more, in a sale or so, especially when it can land on a carrier (like a T-2 or a T-45) or because the German Luftwaffe used it (Alphajet) but then I'd stop because I have enough trainers now.

[lanmancz]

Trainers are an easy cash grab for people who want to take money from the "i buy every dcs module to support DCS" sheeple. One day people will get sick of it and they will fade away.

 

Personally I have only the L39 as it's a trainer made in my country and it is the only one that interests me but I wouldn't dare calling anything developed to DCS quality level "an easy cash grab". This crowd is hard to please. And I suppose 3rd party devs have to start somewhere otherwise they will join the other devs that came and went when they realized the size of the mountain they have to climb. Also, I think that most 3rd party devs have day jobs and developing modules as a second job/hobby so you should cut them some slack. The good stuff is coming.

Edited October 23, 2015 by lanmancz

[tob.s]

As a ground pounder i fell a bit left by the devs, if u wanna fly missions with heavy aa / multiple sams ure still stuck with the old a10, su25 & ka50 and maybee the mig 21 & su27. I own all current modules, but when flying complex missions online you always end up in those old birds.

 

Mi8 and Huey got interesting again with the CTLD transport or medevac scripts on some servers - so big thanks for those.

 

Its about time for some new ground attack or real multirole plane, so seeing all upcoming modules are Interceptor/fighter variants while there also capable attack plane variants off those gets me very disapointed - especialy as those attack variants still would be capable aa fighters so there would be nothing lost for the "topgun faction".

 

I too dont understand why ag gets totally left out - we got highly detailed ground units & sam behaviors, jtag & combined arms... so why shouldnt we get matching planes ?

 

Im a bit concerned that NTTR is the reason to this as the map seems to offer little scenarios despite from (air combat-) training and bombing ranges. ( russians invading las vegas ? - not a very dcs like scenario )

In fact, wags nttr preview videos reminded me more of flying in fsx than dcs. To me it seems a bit like "less combat more sight-seeing" to attract fsx pilots and seeing it this way, a cessna isnt that far away...

 

Still Dcs is and will be the best sim out there, the new modules will certainly be great as always, but it feels like the "c" in DCS gets smaller and smaller to me.

Edited October 23, 2015 by tob.s

[tob.s]

"It is easier to do for third parties. For the first project they do a simple plane, to learn all the stuff."

 

Leathernecks Mig21 showed whats possible. Also theres the Bo 105 project and that guy got not only his own fm but also working tow cable guided missile into dcs by himself. So if a modder can do so without official support i guess it shouldnt be that hard for a third party which surely gets atleast little support from ed.

 

TGP and Shkval / TV, Laser & SEAD guiding logic is already in the game, so are the most weapons, they just needs to be addapted. In fact i dont think it would be harder than implenting any off the other systems if not very simple compared to the complex modelling of the engine and flight model.

 

The solution to all this would be simple, the devs should tell us which planes they think they could do ( planes they can get the required information & licensess ...) and then let the community choose instead of making some seemingly random plane. In fact i only buyed the trainers, ww2 birds, mig15 and sabre cause i wanted to try something new and there was nothing else - there never was a choice/competition between two modules and wo competition, the devs can do whatever and still have solid sales. I guess thats the same for the majority off u guys out there, its nowhere the plane u wanted but its something new. For example - if the hawk and the f14 came out the same day, or the c101 and the f5 - i guess hawks/c101 sales would much lower than they are. With the growing number of modules there will also be more competition which will hopefully lead to some more community influence in the choice off modules.

[dotChuckles]

Trainers are an easy cash grab for people who want to take money from the "i buy every dcs module to support DCS" sheeple. One day people will get sick of it and they will fade away.

 

..... wow :doh:

[VincentLaw]

but it feels like the "c" in DCS gets smaller and smaller to me.

Don't forget "Civil" also starts with a 'C' ;)

 

I'm not really worried about the trainers. I'm not interested in any of the current ones, so I don't own any of them, but I doubt they are really getting "in the way" of other aircraft development. My main problem with the currently available trainers is that 2/3 of them only have an SFM, and for a trainer, a good flight model is even more critical than any other kind of plane. I'm also concerned with the decision to drop multi-seat for the Hawk. Flight model and multi-seat are the main attractions for a trainer.

[Viersbovsky]

agree. i liked l-39 albatros too much. very pretty bird. i thought of buying it but.. what am i suppose to with it? if i dare to dog fight in multiplayer, they will hunt me like duck. a2g is also unefficient. recon missions? there is none in dcsw

 

I hear you.

To be honest, a trainer only makes sense to me with multi-seat capability. It is a simulator, so you can waste an infinite amount of planes, missiles and fuel in the "real" plane like the F-15 or A-10, so why use the trainer first? For roleplaying?

Multi-seat at least sounds really cool for in depth teaching. I would love having someone finally showing me (and then critiquing my efforts) on doing coordinated turns, get the correct glide slope on landing etc. The Albatross at least CAN be used as intended as a trainer.

 

For that reason, the L39 makes sense and has its uses. So as soon as multiseat is implemented I will buy it, but the other trainers don't interest me in the least.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Viersbovsky

[PiedDroit]

Don't forget "Civil" also starts with a 'C' ;)

As long as the environment (ground troops, missions, campaigns) are staying combat-oriented, I'm ok with any civil airframe being developed for DCS (won't buy) ;)

[Sryan]

Well, I for one am excited about the eurofighter typhoon though :P don't forget we're getting an earlier Tranche 1 block 5 craft. not something like a tranche 2 block 20 and definitly not a tranche 3A typhoon. VEAO is working with the RAF on it so we can get one as close to the real deal as possible. Sure, some things are classified and won't be modelled in the sim, but the same applies to the A10-C and we still enjoy that plane a lot.

 

to get on the actual topic of trainers. I kinda like them but I also agree they're missing the point, too. It would be great if they had a PFM, and good tutorials and/or a training campaign that would familiarize a player with modern combat aviation. Instead we're left with a tutorial or two on how to start the thing up and then left to well.. just screw around in it I guess :P

 

Anyway I also think it was a way for avio and veao to break the ice into developing for DCS and see it used as a base for the good stuff that is coming. RAZBAM may be opening up on us with their Mirage 2000C but they've spent quite a lot of their time working on the Buckeye trainer too, by the looks of it.

[PiedDroit]

agree. i liked l-39 albatros too much. very pretty bird. i thought of buying it but.. what am i suppose to with it? if i dare to dog fight in multiplayer, they will hunt me like duck. a2g is also unefficient. recon missions? there is none in dcsw

In competitive environments you might prefer to take the top birds, but there's a lot of interesting things to do with the smaller aircraft.

If you still play in multi, the added challenge is nice (see MiG-21Bis vs modern fighters).

If you play coop multi or offline (PvE), a small attack aircraft will offer good scenarios, like counter insurgency, narcos hunting, etc.

Of course an A-10C will do the job better, but the fun is also in accomplishing a mission with a limited set of tools at hand - in that regard, good mission / campaign system (as pointed out by Sryan) is what we should strive for.

 

In the end, I'm interested in such aircraft only if they can double as COIN aircraft or if they have double seat for in-depth training (as Viersbovsky wrote).

Edited October 24, 2015 by PiedDroit

[Pizzicato]

Trainers are an easy cash grab for people who want to take money from the "i buy every dcs module to support DCS" sheeple.

 

Stating a cynical, disrespectful and highly-subjective opinion as fact isn't helpful to the discussion.

 

You're entitled to your uninformed opinion, but you have absolutely zero evidence to back your position up.

[rrohde]

With an ED-developed trainer - in this case, the L-39, I sincerely hope that there will be adequate training missions, putting the L-39 to good use and actually teach us something. I always like to learn more when it comes to using the various different navaids correctly within DCS. A training campaign that builds up our aviation knowledge would be fantastic. Otherwise, having such trainers would be somewhat pointless - albeit the L-39 is a top-notch module in terms of quality.

[Sporg]

Well, for all the trainer bashing in here, don't forget that we are quite a few that enjoy DCS because it is simply one of the best flight simulators available at the moment, combat or non-combat.

For me a trainer is yet another exciting flight model to test out and see how a more forgiving aircraft behaves.

 

Some people like the trainers, because they would like an environment where you can have a pilot career starting in trainers before upgrading to full warplanes.

 

Last, but not least, remember that there are several Air Force aerobatics teams that fly trainers.

Red Arrows anyone?

 

Some people like these aircraft for aerobatics, in teams or solo.

 

The latest addition, the L-39C even offers multi-crew capability, for the first time. A pilot can sit in the back seat, training another pilot in the front seat flying ILS training under a hood.

 

So, for me there are plenty of valid reasons to both produce and to own trainer modules.

 

In fact there is already a wish thread for a WW II trainer as well, a T-6 trainer.

I would get that module as well, would like to try what equipment was used to train the WW II pilots.

 

I guess that makes me "sheeple" in some less-mannered peoples eyes, but guess if I give a "beep" about that. ;)

Not everyone comes here only for the "combat" part. :)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The Combat part of the DCS acronym is well represented by light attack birds such as the L-39; not every war or conflict is a shooting war with two standing militaries and often is a low-intensity conflict with counter-insurgency operations being the bread and butter of an Air Arm.

 

Funds can be limited for a various number of reasons and the call for light attack is a responsible choice of action for many defense organizations; The A-10 is brutal, but what if the finances for an operation mean that a limited number of them could be deployed? Or what if the involved nation has the audacity to not be able to operate something like the A-10 or Su-25?

 

What if the available runway, whatever it may be, is unsuitable for such aircraft. After all, Frogfoots and Warthogs demand a lot of runway with combat loads. So, the demand there is for either armed VTOL or aircraft capable of dealing with shorting runways. And VTOL is very expensive.

 

At anyrate, the addition of Light Attack/Trainer aircraft in DCS provide variety for mission makers. The L-39C/ZA will require pilots to coordinate to maximize the effectiveness of their weapon employment.

 

tl;dr, they provide variety and challenge.

Edited October 24, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL